7/27/2019 nosciturasociis

1/2

NOSCITUR A SOCIISPEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS ISIDRO FLORES Y LAGUA

GR NO 188315

August 25, 2010

FACTS:

AAA lived with her adoptive mother, BBB, since she was just a few months old.[6] BBB

is married to appellant, who was working abroad for six (6) years. Appellant came home in

1997 and lived with AAA and BBB. BBB was working as a restaurant supervisor from 4:00

p.m. to 2:00 a.m. for six (6) days a week.

AAA, then 11 years old, was sleeping inside the house when she felt and saw appellant

touch her thighs. AAA could see appellants face as there was a light coming from the altar.

AAA was naturally surprised and she asked appellant why the latter did such a thing.

Appellant did not answer but told her not to mention the incident to anybody. AAA then saw

appellant went back to his bed and touch his private part. AAA immediately went back to

sleep. The following day, at around the same time, and while BBB was at work, appellant

again touched AAA from her legs up to her breast. AAA tried to resist but appellant threatened

that he will kill her and BBB.

Two (2) weeks after the incident, AAA was already asleep when she suddenly woke up

and saw appellant holding a knife. While pointing the knife at AAAs neck, appellant removed

his shorts, as well as AAAs pajamas and raped her. Two (2) days after, appellant again raped

her by inserting his organ into AAAs vagina. AAA recounted that appellant raped her at least

three (3) times a week at around the same time until 15 October 2002, when she was 14 years

old.

The appellant was convicted beyond reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals appreciated the

qualifying circumstances of minority and relationship in imposing the penalty of reclusion

perpetua. It relied on the established fact that AAA was still a minor when she was raped and

on the stipulated fact that appellant is her guardian. One of the instances wherein the crime of

rape may be qualified is when the victim is a minor AND the accused is her guardian.

7/27/2019 nosciturasociis

2/2

NOSCITUR A SOCIISISSUE:

Whether or not the accused will be considered a guardian as a qualifying circumstance in the

crime of rape

HELD:

NO

Accord ing to the maxim n osc i tur a soc i is , the cor rec t const ruc t ion of a wo rd or

phrase suscept ible of var ious meanings m ay be made clear and sp eci f ic by consider ing

the company of wo rds in which i t is found or wi th which i t is assoc iated. Section 31(c) of

R.A. No. 7610 contains a listing of the circumstances of relationship between the perpetrator

and the victim which will justify the imposition of the maximum penalty, namely when the

perpetrator is an "ascendant, parent, guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the

second degree of consanguinity or affinity." It should be noted that the words with which

"guardian" is associated in the provision all denote a legal relationship. From this description

we may safely deduce that the guardian envisioned by law is a person who has a legal

relationship with a ward. This relationship may be established either by being the wards

biological parent (natural guardian) or by adoption (legal guardian). Appellant is neither AAAs

biological parent nor is he AAAs adoptive father. Clearly, appellant is not the "guardian"

contemplated by law.

Be that as it may, this qualifying circumstance of being a guardian was not even

mentioned in the Informations. What was clearly stated was that appellant was the adopting

father of AAA, which the prosecution nonetheless failed to establish.

For failure of the prosecution to prove the qualifying circumstance of relationship,

appellant could only be convicted for two (2) counts of simple rape, and not qualified rape.